There is a documentary called Timescapes that is a full length movie and is 160 gig. I can't comment on the quality of it as a movie because it costs 300 dollars for one copy of it. Of course part of that cost is for the drive and shipping since there still isn't any commercially available optical discs that can hold that much data.

And it shouldn't be too much of a shock that awhile back google updated youtube to support 4K content. Unless you have both a fast connection and a good machine it will cry if you try to play 4K stuff from youtube at the original resolution instead of setting the quality to 1080p or something smaller. Just do a search for 4K and you will find some stuff to try.

Kibbler:We spent a grand on an LCD 46" two years ago. Don't plan even to consider anything else for 8-10 years.

I hope your TV lasts that long then. I bought a 32" sharp Aquos late in 2005 (for $2200) and It's still my main TV despite heavy usage and moving 8 times but I don't think that this is normal for modern TVs I think I just got really lucky with mine.

cmunic8r99:I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

That pisses me off too. The only reasonably priced ones I know of are those 2560X1440 Catleap monitors you have to get through ebay for around $400. i'm really happy with mine; one of the best purchases I've made.

cmunic8r99:I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

I seem to remember that the huge drop in LCD costs is due to better manufacturing processes that reduce the incidence of 'dead' or 'stuck' pixels. Apparently the actual components are very cheap to manufacture but they have to recycle (or re-brand as a knock off) a huge number of screens because they have defects. As size increases the chances of having a bad pixel increase as a function of the area of the screen. This might have somethign to do with the costs of larger screens verses smaller screens.

RexTalionis:profplump: / Really wishes we could get back to the high DPI we had on CRTs// Doesn't miss the 22" depth of CRT

So, anyway, Samsung and LG developed the slim CRT display in around 2003-2004, neither of which saw the light of day because everyone was buying LCDs instead.[images02.olx.in image 625x469]

Actually... I had one of these, not one of my prouder moments. LCD's were still really expensive at the time, and my trusty CRT TV had died. This seemed like a nice compromise... in concept. Maybe there was an issue with the early versions, but there were distortion issues.

Egoy3k:cmunic8r99: I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

I seem to remember that the huge drop in LCD costs is due to better manufacturing processes that reduce the incidence of 'dead' or 'stuck' pixels. Apparently the actual components are very cheap to manufacture but they have to recycle (or re-brand as a knock off) a huge number of screens because they have defects. As size increases the chances of having a bad pixel increase as a function of the area of the screen. This might have somethign to do with the costs of larger screens verses smaller screens.

cmunic8r99:Egoy3k: cmunic8r99: I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

I seem to remember that the huge drop in LCD costs is due to better manufacturing processes that reduce the incidence of 'dead' or 'stuck' pixels. Apparently the actual components are very cheap to manufacture but they have to recycle (or re-brand as a knock off) a huge number of screens because they have defects. As size increases the chances of having a bad pixel increase as a function of the area of the screen. This might have somethign to do with the costs of larger screens verses smaller screens.

I'd buy one with 10 dead pixels out of 4 million total.

You shouldn't. Stuck pixels are very, very noticeable. Particularly when you know where they are. The one tiny bright green or red dot in a sea of black draws your eye right in every time. Very distracting, very irritating.

On the other hand, I did once fix a stuck pixel by pressing down on it. I read on the internet that it worked, and much to my surprise after owning the machine for three days and cursing the existence of that stuck pixel, it worked a treat. This was in 1999 and the company I bought the laptop from would only exchange computers with three or more dead pixels. Thankfully things seem to have improved drastically since then.

Gordon Bennett:cmunic8r99: Egoy3k: cmunic8r99: I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

I seem to remember that the huge drop in LCD costs is due to better manufacturing processes that reduce the incidence of 'dead' or 'stuck' pixels. Apparently the actual components are very cheap to manufacture but they have to recycle (or re-brand as a knock off) a huge number of screens because they have defects. As size increases the chances of having a bad pixel increase as a function of the area of the screen. This might have somethign to do with the costs of larger screens verses smaller screens.

I'd buy one with 10 dead pixels out of 4 million total.

You shouldn't. Stuck pixels are very, very noticeable. Particularly when you know where they are. The one tiny bright green or red dot in a sea of black draws your eye right in every time. Very distracting, very irritating.

On the other hand, I did once fix a stuck pixel by pressing down on it. I read on the internet that it worked, and much to my surprise after owning the machine for three days and cursing the existence of that stuck pixel, it worked a treat. This was in 1999 and the company I bought the laptop from would only exchange computers with three or more dead pixels. Thankfully things seem to have improved drastically since then.

It's less of a big deal when you are only dealing with SSH or RDP sessions. For me, anyway, soon after noticing them, they just drop off into the fog.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu:Isn't bluray (1080p) 60fps? I think they are talking to the video equivalent of audiophiles to make up for trying to fit a full length feature out of 1/3 of a short book.

Blu-ray can display 1080p60, but there's no content out there that was shot that way.

Standard Blu-ray can display 1080i60, which is 60 interlaced fields (30 frames) per second. Blu-ray 3D can display 1080p60, but that frame rate is shared by left and right eye content. I'm not sure that it can be used for 2D content.

Retina displays at arms length is one thing, but 60" and you'll have to be seated at least ten feet back. And I've found that most people can't tell 720 vs 1080 at 15 feet. Same thing about audio systems. As long as you're synchronized you can't improve the sound by pouring money into the system. I figure there's a serious plateau of diminishing returns around the thousand dollar mark.

Now, a 60" 4k computer monitor at just over arms length, that might kick ass."

Yeah, I'm good with my 720p plasma & good vintage stereo setup. (McIntosh, Yamaha, Polk, Nakamichi, Thorens) I've seen and heard MUCH more expensive TVs & stereo systems, but like you say, it only gets so good before you're throwing money away.

cmunic8r99:I still want to know why a 2560x1600 10" tablet costs $400, but a computer display of any size at a similar resolution costs upwards of $1000. Big pixels are more expensive?

To some degree big pixels are more expensive -- error rate increases not only with number of pixels but also with overall panel size. Which is part of the reason why 60" 720p panels so much more expensive than 40" 720p panels even in fairly reasonably priced goods.

But mostly we're just being fleeced because many consumers have been happy with TV-resolution displays. The big LCD panels were very expensive back in the day when they were competing with CRTs. Then we got HDTV and suddenly every panel maker was selling what they called "24 inch monitors" that were in fact 24" big but lucky to beat TV resolution, but it didn't matter because many people were excited to get a "big" monitor for $300. So no one has designed a new, high-res, large-scale monitor for anything other than niche markets for years.

Now that we're finally getting high resolutions on small panels that might change. Once business-size laptops (14"-17") start getting high-res screens as the default I suspect monitors will quickly follow suit. It will take a while to actually get to a 24+" screen with 200+ DPI, but I think for the first time in years we're finally on the right track.